Sure, there are small vertical markets here and there, but mainstream consumer software flows through Microsoft and you can't make any money otherwise.
Also, this is completely wrong, unless you again incorrectly define markets. If you define the software industry as "selling copies of office suites and operating systems" yes, it's pretty much all MS and open source. Maybe even if you define it as "one company making billions of dollars off software". But I'd rather see a thousand companies making a million dollars anyway.
If you define it as "people making money developing software", there is plenty going on that has nothing to do with MS. My company for example develops software, it's how we make our money, we don't run any of our software on anything MS, and we're doing fine.
Go back and read my comment again. Then wonder, as I am doing, why you went off about open source software.:-) I didn't say anything about open source and I am not talking about open source.
I think your mistake is in believing the software industry means making money from selling copies of an OS. They're not the same. The OS vendors are a small part of the commercial software development happening in this country.
That's already happening. The saving rate is going up, which is... not stimulating the economy. I'm not sure I really have a problem with that. If the American people decide to pay off their debts and save some money, and that means we go through a longer recession and come out the other side with a more robust economy, so be it.
However, that doesn't mean economic growth doesn't require lending and spending - it does.
I'm not sure exactly, but it sounds like you're referring to the gold standard? US currency has been fiat for quite a long time now and is thus unrelated to gold. Or perhaps you're referring to a totally unrelated meaning of the term "dollar", in which case I'm not sure why you mentioned that "The politicians have slowly but surely devalued our money".
Sure they could test it. The only problem is stupid people would not realize it's better to test it on some random Wednesday afternoon and risk failure then, than to test it during an emergency. If they run a test and it goes badly, they get major bad PR, when they really should get good PR for trying to make sure their systems work ahead of time.
So they end up doing exactly what you said - don't test it at all, and just hope there's no emergency.
I heard that the estimate is the mall holds around 1.0-1.2 million when full. I don't know how accurate that is, but I'm guessing someone who knows more about it than you or I came up with that.;-)
The folks who publich sheet music for musicians to buy in music stores sell music.
Hm, they sell paper. But if you try to do whatever you want with the music written on the paper, such as distribute it to others, you'll get much the same reaction as you do from the RIAA with the music.
What benefit does it give the user to be unable to click on the notification to read the email? If the mail icon is sufficient notification, don't pop up the notification at all. If it's not sufficient, let the user click on the notification bubble if they want to - or not if they don't want to.
Shuttleworth seems to think that if users can do something with a notification, they'll feel like they MUST do it. I'll buy that if he has research to back it up, otherwise I'm skeptical.
There are always applications found when something gets smaller (physically), bigger (storage), faster, or cheaper. It will be the same with this. When we reach the limit of storage density for flash memory, people will still want and expect bigger drives (capacity), but they won't want them to be physically bigger. Thus, we'll need some other technology to satisfy that market. There will be money in it, so somebody will find a way, whether it's graphene or something else.
You are essentially already doing this if you use online banking services: you can browse the website without authentication, but you need strong authentication to access your account and engage in transactions.
Seriously? Username and password is strong authentication? That's not a good sign...
And then his answer about how they're going to address the problem that "our nations national security is threatened by the current single platform strategy" boils down to "we're not".
Actually that's not quite what I was getting at. What I'm wondering is, are all the why questions even answerable scientifically? Could there ever be a scientific experiment or observation that demonstrates why gravity exists? I can't think how there could be.
If science cannot determine why gravity exists, could we expect it to determine why it behaves in a particular way? Perhaps we should be content with science discovering how gravity works, and leave the why as a philosophical question.
When someone mentions a product as losing money, they're usually talking about negative marginal revenue. After all, a brand-new fantastically profitable product will often be "losing money" at the beginning if you count fixed costs, but nobody would describe it so.
As I said, you had it backwards. The key you keep and use to sign your email is your private key. The key you give out (to a certifier, or the public, or whatever) is your public key. The reason they're not just called Key A and Key B is that it's very important which one is public and which is private.
Sure, if you trust ONE COMPANY. With my idea, anyone could certify emails. Your ISP. A company. A government. An individual. You don't need to trust that one company won't go spam-friendly, or get hacked, or even go out of business.
There is more than one company now giving out certificates, and there is nothing stopping anybody else from doing so. So how is your idea different from what we have now?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, there are small vertical markets here and there, but mainstream consumer software flows through Microsoft and you can't make any money otherwise.
Also, this is completely wrong, unless you again incorrectly define markets. If you define the software industry as "selling copies of office suites and operating systems" yes, it's pretty much all MS and open source. Maybe even if you define it as "one company making billions of dollars off software". But I'd rather see a thousand companies making a million dollars anyway.
If you define it as "people making money developing software", there is plenty going on that has nothing to do with MS. My company for example develops software, it's how we make our money, we don't run any of our software on anything MS, and we're doing fine.
Go back and read my comment again. Then wonder, as I am doing, why you went off about open source software. :-) I didn't say anything about open source and I am not talking about open source.
I think your mistake is in believing the software industry means making money from selling copies of an OS. They're not the same. The OS vendors are a small part of the commercial software development happening in this country.
That's already happening. The saving rate is going up, which is... not stimulating the economy. I'm not sure I really have a problem with that. If the American people decide to pay off their debts and save some money, and that means we go through a longer recession and come out the other side with a more robust economy, so be it.
However, that doesn't mean economic growth doesn't require lending and spending - it does.
I don't have mod points so I'll reply instead. Funny stuff!
I'm not sure exactly, but it sounds like you're referring to the gold standard? US currency has been fiat for quite a long time now and is thus unrelated to gold. Or perhaps you're referring to a totally unrelated meaning of the term "dollar", in which case I'm not sure why you mentioned that "The politicians have slowly but surely devalued our money".
His plan results in lobbyists getting killed on live TV. And it uses the Condorcet method.
Getting arrested does not imply being at a crime scene. The police can arrest you anywhere.
This dictionary says you could pronounce gigahertz as jeye-guh-hurts?
Sure they could test it. The only problem is stupid people would not realize it's better to test it on some random Wednesday afternoon and risk failure then, than to test it during an emergency. If they run a test and it goes badly, they get major bad PR, when they really should get good PR for trying to make sure their systems work ahead of time.
So they end up doing exactly what you said - don't test it at all, and just hope there's no emergency.
I heard that the estimate is the mall holds around 1.0-1.2 million when full. I don't know how accurate that is, but I'm guessing someone who knows more about it than you or I came up with that. ;-)
There's also a big orange stripe laid down at the sideline. I think this is the main indicator the players use.
Wasn't that the first subject of The Daily Show's new feature, "Why??"
The folks who publich sheet music for musicians to buy in music stores sell music.
Hm, they sell paper. But if you try to do whatever you want with the music written on the paper, such as distribute it to others, you'll get much the same reaction as you do from the RIAA with the music.
More bars in more places my ass.
Well there's your problem. The bars aren't supposed to go in your ass.
I've been a Windows user for over 15 years... there is no reason in hell I should spend 30 seconds scanning the Control Panel for a single icon.
That is true, since there's a search box right there. ;-)
What benefit does it give the user to be unable to click on the notification to read the email? If the mail icon is sufficient notification, don't pop up the notification at all. If it's not sufficient, let the user click on the notification bubble if they want to - or not if they don't want to.
Shuttleworth seems to think that if users can do something with a notification, they'll feel like they MUST do it. I'll buy that if he has research to back it up, otherwise I'm skeptical.
There are always applications found when something gets smaller (physically), bigger (storage), faster, or cheaper. It will be the same with this. When we reach the limit of storage density for flash memory, people will still want and expect bigger drives (capacity), but they won't want them to be physically bigger. Thus, we'll need some other technology to satisfy that market. There will be money in it, so somebody will find a way, whether it's graphene or something else.
Remember the "funeral" for Ro and LaForge? Yeah, more of that, less of dirges.
It may not be what you're thinking of, but it reminds me of:
"It is... it is... It is green."
You are essentially already doing this if you use online banking services: you can browse the website without authentication, but you need strong authentication to access your account and engage in transactions.
Seriously? Username and password is strong authentication? That's not a good sign...
And then his answer about how they're going to address the problem that "our nations national security is threatened by the current single platform strategy" boils down to "we're not".
Actually that's not quite what I was getting at. What I'm wondering is, are all the why questions even answerable scientifically? Could there ever be a scientific experiment or observation that demonstrates why gravity exists? I can't think how there could be.
If science cannot determine why gravity exists, could we expect it to determine why it behaves in a particular way? Perhaps we should be content with science discovering how gravity works, and leave the why as a philosophical question.
How do those numbers show a PS3 is a fourth as powerful as an average GPU?
When someone mentions a product as losing money, they're usually talking about negative marginal revenue. After all, a brand-new fantastically profitable product will often be "losing money" at the beginning if you count fixed costs, but nobody would describe it so.
As I said, you had it backwards. The key you keep and use to sign your email is your private key. The key you give out (to a certifier, or the public, or whatever) is your public key. The reason they're not just called Key A and Key B is that it's very important which one is public and which is private.
Sure, if you trust ONE COMPANY. With my idea, anyone could certify emails. Your ISP. A company. A government. An individual. You don't need to trust that one company won't go spam-friendly, or get hacked, or even go out of business.
There is more than one company now giving out certificates, and there is nothing stopping anybody else from doing so. So how is your idea different from what we have now?